In response to his comments at the Residential Boat Owner Association AGM I recently wrote to Robin Evans, challenging his assertion that one purpose of the BW Moorings Tenders process is to avoid BW “subsidising” the cost of moorings.
Robin’s response is very revealing and indicates that on average two thirds of the mooring fees that BW moorings customers are paying is going into the general BW funds.
You have on many past occasions used the argument that BW cannot “subsidise” its directly managed moorings as attempted justification for moorings tenders, most recently at the RBOA AGM last Saturday.
This raises some obvious questions which I would be grateful for your thoughts on.
"Subsidise” has clear meaning: “pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce its price”. Compact Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/ )
1. Can you cite any recent examples where you have evidence that BW have been providing moorings at less than cost?
2. Also, when guide prices and reserves are set for moorings tenders, what if any checks or policy framework applies to ensure that the reserve price is set at or in excess of the cost of providing that berth?
(Avoiding this situation was I recall one of the reasons cited when the market rates based pricing policy was adopted many years ago, long before Moorings Tenders hove into view. Are you saying BW had not been following its own policy on setting moorings prices at commercial levels during that time and needed to add the tendering process to enforce that?)
3. What is your best estimate of the surplus in terms of income versus expenditure that BW accounts for from its directly managed moorings business?
Can we at least agree that moorings tenders has nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring BW covers its costs?
His reply on these points was as follows: